Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - garlands

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 105
28
Ireland / Re: Bartholomew QUIGLEY & Ann HUNT ca 1840
« on: Friday 19 January 24 22:34 GMT (UK)  »
Just noticed the connection to Thomas FAIRHURST.

Mary QUIGLEY was the first daughter (b ca 1865) of Bartholomew & Ann, and she married Thomas FAIRHURST on 04 Feb 1888 in Wigan.

That clinches it. Thank you.

29
Ireland / Re: Bartholomew QUIGLEY & Ann HUNT ca 1840
« on: Friday 19 January 24 22:27 GMT (UK)  »
I would say - yes it is. Location is fine, as is age, so I'm happy to run with that.

Many thanks - that's great

30
Ireland / Bartholomew QUIGLEY & Ann HUNT ca 1840
« on: Friday 19 January 24 17:44 GMT (UK)  »
In 1851, living at Austin Houses, Wigan, are:-

Bartholomew QUIGLEY (transcribed COGLEY), b 1808 Ireland
Hannah              do                    do             , b 1816 Ireland
James                do                    do             , b 1843 Ireland
John                  do                    do             , b 1845 Ireland

In 1861, the surname is transcribed as SOWERLY, but in 1871, 1881 and 1891 it is QUIGLEY. The birth place is never more detailed than simply 'Ireland'.

It appears that, after 1851, all later children were born in Wigan with the records giving mother's maiden name as HUNT.

I know it's an extremely long shot, but can anyone please point me to the marriage of Bartholomew QUIGLEY and Ann/Hannah HUNT which, presumably, occurred ca 1842?

31
Lancashire / Re: Roger HURST ca 1798
« on: Friday 29 December 23 17:30 GMT (UK)  »
It appears that Roger what's-his-name baptized 3 children in Ormskirk:-

03 Jul 1795   William   parents  Roger & Agatha HEYHURST
18 Jan 1797   Nancy        do                     do
06 Feb 1799   Jane          do     Roger & Agnes  HAYHURST

and one in Wigan:-

17 Dec 1800  Alice  3rd daughter of Roger  HEYHURST (a currier) & Agnes (formerly SUMNER)
                                                     mother's parents Thomas & Nanny SUMNER

The only marriage which seems to fit is:-

17 Feb 1794  Roger HAYHURST    m    Agnes SUMNER     in  Leyland
                       a  Currier
                      of Clitheroe                     of Leyland (17m from Clitheroe)

Roger HEYHURST, Currier, engaged at least 2 apprentices (1797 & 1798) in Ormskirk (12m from Leyland)

I can't find any record of a baptism for an Agatha SUMNER. There is, however:-

07 Jan 1770 Agness (sic)   dr of Thomas & Elizabeth SUMNER in Walton le Dale (3m to Leyland)

Is 'Elizabeth' the 'Nanny' mentioned above?.

I think that "Agatha" must be a mistake, although why it would be repeated 18 months after its first appearance is difficult to explain. Another mystery (to me, at any rate) is why the "HEY" should come to be dropped from Roger's surname.

Unless there are any errors on my part still remaining, I think my original query has been answered.


32
Lancashire / Re: Roger HURST ca 1798
« on: Saturday 16 December 23 16:09 GMT (UK)  »
Definitely 'u'

33
Lancashire / Re: Roger HURST ca 1798
« on: Saturday 16 December 23 12:37 GMT (UK)  »
Thank you.

I thought I'd done all that but, apparently, I hadn't. I've just done a revised search which has produced 16 results, including the 7 you list plus 8 for HURST and 1 for HAIHURST.

Although the transcripts give his occupation as 'currier', my reading of the originals is 'carrier'; what do you think? Not that it's important, merely a matter of interest.

No, I've not checked the baptisms on Lancs OPC.

34
Lancashire / Re: Roger HURST ca 1798
« on: Friday 15 December 23 23:02 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks.

I've done that and it's brought up only 6 results:-

#1   a prison record
#2   22 Feb 1794  Roger HAYHURST of Clitherow  (Carrier) m  Agnes SUMNER
#3          do                   do                     do                           do                 of Leyland
#4   As #2 & 3  plus Roger b 1773, marriage in Leyland
#5   a baptism in 1796 in Blackburn
#6              1794  Roger HAIHURST  m  Agnes SUMNER

The originals of #2 & #3 quite clearly show the bride's name as Agnes

35
Lancashire / Re: Roger HURST ca 1798
« on: Friday 15 December 23 17:58 GMT (UK)  »
Thank you for the OPC details.

I haven't used this service since the days when it was necessary to message the OPC with a request for a search, which could take anything from a same day response up to over a week, depending on the OPC's work-load. This system is an eye-opener for me.

I've searched the whole county, 1790-1800 and found:-

01 Mar 1794   Roger HAYHURST  m  Agnes SUMNER  in St Andrew, Leyland

Nothing for HURST/HEYHURST  or  Agatha XXXX

36
Lancashire / Re: Roger HURST ca 1798
« on: Friday 15 December 23 17:21 GMT (UK)  »
A search for the marriage of Roger HAYHURST brings up:-

Roger HAIHURST  m  Agnes SUMNER  1794   in Leyland  (on Boyd's Marriage Index)

To my mind, not the most convincing of results

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 105